Expectations for Safe Gatherings Slip
Trump Reverts to Tactic of Accusing Foes of Felonies
Trump Plan to Court Black Voters Hits New Hurdle
Trump Campaign Claims Race Is a Tie
GOP Likely to Flip California Seat
GOP Voters Give Trump Cover to Reopen
• Apparently, the Crisis Is Over
• Farmers Are Really Getting Plowed
• Pelosi and Co. Are Getting Ready to Shoot for the Moon
• Biden Campaign Working on Republican Outreach
• Harris Is Reportedly in the Lead for VP Slot
• Sanders Is Done Running for President
• An Ace in the Hole for House Democrats?
• Missouri Republicans Decide that Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures
• Today's Presidential Polls
Starting today, we will track the Senate as well as the Electoral College, but with a number of footnotes. The executive summary is that the Democrats currently lead in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Montana, and North Carolina. Assuming Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) loses to whoever wins the Alabama runoff, that puts the Democrats at 51.
Now the footnotes. First up, we don't know all the Senate candidates, because we have many primaries yet to come. But there is both good news and bad news here. The good news is that in most of the competitive states, we can make a very good guess who will win the primary and in the noncompetitive states we know which party will win, no matter who the candidates are. The bad news is that one election is hopeless for us, tracking-wise.
For six states, we are going to go out on a big solid limb and guess who the Senate candidates will be and use the general-election polls for them. Here are our best guesses, where an asterisk indicates an incumbent:
|Arizona||Mark Kelly||Martha McSally*||Aug. 4|
|Colorado||John Hickenlooper||Cory Gardner*||June 30|
|Iowa||Theresa Greenfield||Joni Ernst*||June 2|
|Maine||Sara Gideon||Susan Collins*||July 14|
|New Mexico||Ben Ray Luján||Gavin Clarkson||June 2|
|Texas||Mary "MJ" Hegar||John Cornyn*||July 14|
In all six states the primary is yet to occur, but the candidates shown are the very strong odds-on favorites. There is one competitive race not shown above: North Carolina. That one is not shown because the primary has already happened and the candidates are Cal Cunningham (D) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).
One potentially competitive race is Kansas, whose primary is Aug. 4. If Kris Kobach (R) wins it, the Democrats have a decent shot of winning a Senate seat in Kansas for the first time since 1932. Kobach ran for governor in 2018 and managed to lose, and by a large margin. If Kobach does not make it through the primary, whichever Republican wins it will be the next senator from Kansas.
The regular Georgia election has a normal primary on June 9 with a runoff on Aug. 11 (if needed). Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) is the only Republican who qualified, so he will be the GOP nominee. Seven Democrats qualified and three of them are serious candidates. Sarah Riggs Amico was the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor in 2018. Jon Ossoff was the Democratic candidate in the 2017 special election in GA-06 and broke all records by raising $23 million on his own and another $32 million via outside groups. Teresa Tomlinson is the former mayor of Columbus, GA. Polling has Ossoff ahead at about 33%, with the other two around 15%. But with 39% of the Democrats undecided, we will wait until the primary to start tracking this one.
The Alabama GOP runoff is on Bastille Day and will be between Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville and former senator Jeff Sessions. On that day a mob of Alabamians will storm the Senate and free themselves of a Democrat who is currently there by virtue of a freak accident in which he faced a child molester in a special election in 2017. It doesn't matter who wins the Republican primary, it will be curtains for Jones.
The bad news (for us) is the Georgia special election. Six Republicans and eight Democrats are running in a jungle primary that will be held on Nov. 3. Worse yet, the Republicans have two serious candidates, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) and Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) and the Democrats also have two serious candidates, Matt Lieberman (Joe Lieberman's son) and Raphael Warnock (pastor of Martin Luther King's former church in Atlanta). Former state senator Ed Tarver is also running and will certainly get some votes but is very unlikely to make the runoff, which is on Jan. 5, 2021—after Congress convenes. There are four plausible runoff combos here: Lieberman-Loeffler, Lieberman-Collins, Warnock-Loeffler, and Warnock-Collins and maybe a couple of implausible ones as well. Our problem is while there may be polls of all four one-on-one combinations, we won't know which it will be until Nov. 4 at the earliest. The unpleasant result is that there is no realistic way to track this election. So we will just use the 2016 election results and assume the Republican will win. Realistically, if Loeffler gets the GOP nod, we don't think any Democrat can beat her. If Collins gets it, well, he's another Kris Kobach, and might do the impossible and allow a Democrat to win. The reason Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) skipped over Collins and appointed Loeffler is that he was afraid of precisely that outcome.
Anyway, be sure to click on the Click for Senate link above the map regularly. Not only is there a Senate map that will be updated daily going forward, but also a description of all 35 Senate races, which will also be updated as circumstances change. If you want to bookmark the Senate page, use https://www.electoral-vote.com/senate.
The code for tracking both the presidential and Senate general elections at the same time is four years old. As every ICT-er knows, software rots. If you find bugs anywhere, please let us know at firstname.lastname@example.org. And of course, please tell your friends and family about the site now that we also have the Senate score. (V & Z)
Holding his press conference al fresco, so as to emphasize that the need to stay indoors has ended, Donald Trump advised the nation on Monday that COVID-19 has been conquered. "In every generation, through every challenge and hardship and danger, America has risen to the task," the President declared. "We have met the moment and we have prevailed."
At this point, a generous dollop of gaslighting is just another day at the office for Trump. Still, does he really think that people won't notice that the U.S. death toll just passed 80,000? Does he really think that people won't notice that masks and lockdowns remain ubiquitous, that professional sports events and movies and other mass gatherings remain shuttered, and that malls, restaurants, and parks are still ghost towns? Does he really think that people won't notice that his declaration that the U.S. is the most-tested country in the world is untrue, or that his declaration (once again) that anyone in the U.S. who wants a COVID-19 test can have one is also untrue?
The answer is: No. Even Trump, though a master of self-delusion, does not really believe what he's peddling. The President himself gave ample evidence of this at his press conference, when he was challenged by Chinese-American reporter Weijia Jiang of CBS News, who wondered why it matters if the U.S. is #1 in testing, since this is not a competition, and Americans are still dying in disproportionate numbers. Trump, in what certainly appeared to be a reference to her ethnic background, told Jiang she should ask China if she wants to know, and called it a "nasty question." The president then briefly argued with the next reporter he had called on (Kaitlan Collins of CNN, who had deferred to Jiang's follow-up question to Trump) and finally stormed off, bringing an abrupt end to the proceedings. Presidents who are recognizing a real triumph are not that much on edge, nor do they so easily yield their moment in the spotlight in a fit of pique.
Additional evidence that even Trump does not believe his own falsehoods is the news on Monday that the White House will adopt a strict "masks for everyone except the President" policy starting immediately. If COVID-19 really were in the rearview mirror, that policy obviously would not be necessary.
The bully pulpit is a powerful thing, but it does have its limits. You can only abuse the privilege so often before the American people lose confidence in what you have to say. One thinks of Lyndon B. Johnson's repeated pronouncements that the Vietnam War was almost won, or George W. Bush's repeated statements about the existence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, those men lost the power to influence the narrative, ultimately leaving office unpopular (49% approval for Johnson, 37% for Bush), and yielding the White House to the other party. Trump has moved squarely into Johnson-Bush territory, we would say. (Z)
Yesterday, we had an item talking about some of the ugly consequences of COVID-19 that are still just on the horizon. In it, we had a paragraph about farmers, who are currently destroying vast amounts of product, since demand is way down. On Monday, The Washington Post had a piece zooming in on that point much more closely.
Though the article does not organize things in quite this way, there are four important issues in play here:
- The "small family farm" faces an uphill struggle these days, in an age of automation and massive
agri-conglomerates. On some level, they are kind of like coal miners, an artifact of an era whose time is almost
- Given the intense competition, farmers (like the restaurants at the other end of the chain) operate on small
- The trade wars with China hit the farmers hard, even though there were some promising signs in recent months, in the
form of large Chinese orders for American farm products.
- COVID-19 has thrown a wrench into everything, reducing demand for product in the United States, and also making it much harder to export product abroad. That the Trump administration appears determined to scapegoat and punish China for the whole thing adds an additional layer of worry for farmers.
Taken together, the bottom line is that Trump promised a (not-likely-to-happen) renaissance for farmers when he ran for office the first time, and instead they are in the middle of the most serious downturn in generations. "This is the worst I've ever seen it. And I've seen some very bad times," said one dairy farmer quoted by the Post.
One of these days, a bunch of farmers might wake up, and decide that maybe the Donald isn't the president for them anymore. Or maybe that day has already arrived. Here is a list of the U.S. states with the most farms:
Trump won seven of these states in 2016 (all but CA, IL, and MN), six of those by sizable margins (all but WI). If you take a look at the map above, you'll see that only three of them are rock-solid for him right now. A key for the farmers is how much money they get from the government to keep them afloat. If House Democrats take the initiative in the next COVID-19 relief bill (see below), and steer many billions toward farmers, that could swing a fair number of votes, and maybe even some states. Of course, if a new relief bill has aid for farmers, Trump will claim credit for it and say it was his idea all along. (Z)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is busy ramming judges of dubious qualifications through the Senate, and also knows he's gotten about as much pork for big businesses as is possible. So, he continues to pooh-pooh the notion that there is an imminent need for COVID-19 Relief Bill v5.0.
That puts the ball squarely in the court of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her caucus, and they are already working to pick it up and run with it. The scuttlebutt is that they are thinking trillions (for a second time), and that the key areas for funding will be these:
- Money for state and local governments
- Assistance with rent and mortgages
- Cash payments to most Americans for the duration; perhaps as much as $2,000/month
- Help for workers and businesses
- Expansion of broadband services to rural areas
- Funds for COVID-19 testing, tracing, and treatment
- A bailout for the U.S. Postal Service
- Supplemental nutrition programs for those in poverty
Referring back to the item about farmers above, there's plenty of room in there to do some things for them. Indeed, the proposal to extend broadband services is a clear throwback to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, which helped bring large numbers of farmers into the Democratic tent nearly a century ago.
As House Democrats push for this lavish spending package, they will undoubtedly get blowback from McConnell, but they are also likely to have an ally they do not usually have in the form of Donald Trump. His only political principle right now is "get Donald Trump reelected," and he undoubtedly knows that won't happen if vast numbers of farms, businesses, and households are allowed to collapse. So, there is an excellent chance that the Majority Leader is going to find himself outgunned and outnumbered, and perhaps sooner than he thinks. (Z)
Speaking of the 2020 elections, there are reports that the Biden campaign is helping to organize (or, at very least, is encouraging) a "Republicans for Biden" group that is in the early stages of formation. The story is only being reported, at the moment, by very left-wing sites (like the Daily Beast) and very right-wing sites (like Fox News and The Washington Times). That indicates that the news is still pretty fuzzy, and suggests that the idea has lefties very hopeful and righties very nervous.
At the moment, the names being bandied about are the usual suspects—Jeff Flake, John Kasich, Bill Kristol, Steve Schmidt, Charlie Sykes, Michael Steele, etc. All of these folks have made clear their dislike for Trump, and for Trumpism. Indeed, if there was a Mount Rushmore of Never Trumpers, four fellows from this list would probably be on it. Will their rallying against Trump (and for Biden) in a more centrally organized way move the needle in 2020? Maybe; undoubtedly these folks know a little something about PR and about persuading voters. Maybe not, though; can there really be that many "Old Guard" Republican voters that are on the fence?
More intriguing is the talk that some "major officeholders" will join the effort. It's a little unclear exactly what that might mean. Current officeholders or former ones? State level or federal level? However, let us imagine, as a thought exercise, that Biden manages to flip three current high-profile Republicans who are currently in office. Obviously, he's not getting a Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) or a Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). But folks like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who doesn't like Trump, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is old-school and whose constituents are restless, and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who is retiring, are not completely out of the realm of possibility. Similarly, Trump has battled Govs. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Larry Hogan (R-MD), and Charlie Baker (R-MA) on COVID-19, recently threw Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) under the bus, and has little in common with Govs. Phil Scott (R-VT) and Chris Sununu (R-NH). If, to pick a trio among these names, Romney, DeWine, and Sununu come out for Biden, that could get some attention. So, this bears watching, to see where it goes. (Z)
Take this with more than a few grains of salt, but of the dozen or so people being vetted for the #2 slot on the Democratic ticket with Joe Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is being described as the frontrunner.
Harris' selling points are obvious. As she is part black and part Asian, Democrats hope she will make both of those constituencies happy. She is also the child of immigrants, and is from California, so she may also get some Latino voters excited. She's a smooth politician and an excellent fundraiser, and she apparently has a good working relationship with Biden. Inasmuch as she's been a U.S. Senator and has also led two different large bureaucracies back in her home state, there can be little question that she's capable of sitting in the big chair should the need arise.
The reason that you should take this with a grain of salt, however, is that none of this is coming from the Biden campaign. It is being put out there by friends and supporters of the campaign, and by various pooh-bahs in the Democratic Party. Put another way, it's just a trial balloon for now. If there's a negative response to Harris-as-VP, her time as frontrunner will end very quickly. Meanwhile, she's going to have a very bright public spotlight on her, and there is going to be an army of Democratic dirt-diggers looking through her past, so something disqualifying could pop up at any moment. Where, exactly, did she store her e-mails when she was California AG?
At the moment, we think the biggest lesson here is actually this: Having so many Democratic debates, early on, was a giant waste of time. Joe Biden entered the debate season as the favorite, he was rarely one of the top debate performers, and he ended up with the nomination anyhow. Meanwhile, Harris shredded the former VP in the first debate, all but calling him a racist, and now that's just water under the bridge. In short, nothing that happened during those thirteen debates (the first two had two parts, remember) mattered one bit, long-term. Perhaps the DNC will take note of that, and conclude that a small number of debates might actually have a greater impact, though we doubt it. (Z)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) sat (remotely) for an interview with The Washington Post's Robert Costa, and confirmed what everyone already knew: He won't be running for president again. Describing the odds as "very, very slim," the Senator acknowledged that "Next time around, you're gonna see another candidate carrying the progressive banner."
Sanders has a history of heart problems, and will be 79 years old on Inauguration Day 2021. Assuming there is no Democratic incumbent running in 2024, then the Senator would be asking the American people to elect him to a term that would start with him aged 83, and would potentially end with him aged 91. Surely there is an age where the rigors of the world's toughest job are just too much. More importantly, perhaps, is that Sanders has had two opportunities to transform the loyal support of 25-35% of Democrats plus vast piles of cash into a viable electoral coalition, and he hasn't been able to do it. Maybe that speaks to his weaknesses as a politician or maybe it speaks to the ceiling imposed by his particular message and political program. Either way, there's no reason to believe that he can break through if given a third bite at the apple.
Who will succeed Sanders as the progressive standard-bearer? That is a very interesting question. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is nearly a decade younger than Sanders, and certainly appears to be healthier, so it could be her. That said, she appeals to a different segment of the electorate than Sanders does, and many of Sanders' supporters are left with a bitter taste in their mouths given the squabbles the two senators had during this campaign. Further, if Joe Biden is running for reelection, then Warren's next chance would be in 2028, at which point she would be looking at serving from ages 79 to 87. Pretty long in the tooth.
Alternatively, there is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She excites Sanders' base much more than Warren does, and has made a point of cozying up with the Vermont Senator, clearly with an eye toward inheriting his movement. Oh, and as judged by the near-stalker-like obsession with her on right-wing sites like The Daily Wire and Breitbart, she scares the wits out of the conservatives, which is undoubtedly a selling point with most (all?) of the Democratic base. AOC will be awfully young in 2024, though (just barely) eligible to serve as president. If the next "open" Democratic contest isn't until 2028, then she'll be within spitting distance of John F. Kennedy's age when he was elected, and she'll have more than a decade of networking and brand-building under her belt. So, our money is on Ocasio-Cortez as Sanders v2.0. If Kamala Harris becomes VP, we could have another centrist vs. progressive dynamic in 2024 or 2028, except with two women of color, as compared to the two senior-citizen white men we saw this year. In short, the ultimate repudiation of Trumpism. (Z)
Lauren Libby, a U. of Michigan law student writing for Politico, points out the existence of a law that may allow House Democrats to get Donald Trump's taxes, even if the Supreme Court strikes down the law that the blue team is currently trying to use. In short, one of the laws passed by the first Congress says: "The [Treasury] Secretary shall report to either House of Congress in person or in writing, as required, on matters referred to the Secretary by that House of Congress." If you care to read the law for yourself, it is 31 U.S. Code § 331(d).
The legal argument here is pretty airtight. The law was passed more than 200 years ago, and has been adhered to by both Congress and presidents many times since then. The Supreme Court has affirmed, numerous times, that laws passed by the early Congresses should be regarded as inherently constitutional, unless there is some strong argument to the contrary. That means that the so-called "originalists" on the Court, like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, would have to really twist themselves into pretzels to sustain a presidential challenge to the law.
So, how come House Democrats haven't already pursued this? We can think of three possible explanations:
- They are unaware of the law
- They are keeping the option in their back pocket, in the event SCOTUS rules against them
- They don't think it will actually work
Option #1 is implausible. Our guess is that Option #3 is the correct answer, and even if it's not the correct answer, it should be. That is to say, Trump-disdaining Americans might like to believe that there's still a rabbit to be pulled from the Democratic hat, but we don't think there is. The primary thing the President cares about is that his returns remain secret until Nov. 4, 2020. The Court will hear arguments in the current suits today, and the earliest a ruling will come down is mid-June (and very possibly, not even then, as some predict that John Roberts will find a way to kick the can down the road until after the election). If House Democrats attempt to exercise their "secret" authority in mid-June, surely Trump will refuse and force the matter into the courts again. Is there any chance that the Democrats manage to work their way through all the levels of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court, and get themselves a clear and favorable ruling, all in the course of four months? The timing just does not work, and even if it somehow does, why would SCOTUS give them an affirmative and pre-election ruling in that suit if they fail to do so in the current suit(s)?
Alternatively, there is little question that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is willing to do Trump's bidding, and to muddy the waters as needed. Imagine that the Secretary is ordered to make a report to Congress, and he shows up and says, "Yes, I've seen the returns. My report is that they are big pretty white returns with black stripes, and they look kind of like a Tylenol. Bye!" That would be a report, one that fulfills the letter of the law, while obliterating its spirit. What would the Democrats do then? File suit, declaring that it wasn't a good enough report? That's even less likely to make its way through the court system, and to produce a favorable ruling.
In short, folks who would really like Trump's returns to see the light of day—for whatever reason—better be hoping that John Roberts puts on his big-boy robes, and produces an actual decision in June. Maybe even one consistent with the law which, given that Trump is currently 0 for 7 in court hearings on this matter, would seem to suggest a decision adverse to the President's wishes. (Z)
There are undoubtedly states where Democrats benefit from gerrymandering (with Maryland being the most notable example). However, there are considerably more states where Republicans benefit (among them Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio). With the next 10 years' worth of district maps on the horizon, and the Republican base shrinking, the gerrymander is definitely on the minds of GOP officials right now.
It's not so easy to keep gerrymanders going at the moment, though. To start, the Democrats allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed in 2010, giving Republicans the opportunity to seize the initiative. The blue team has now had roughly 8 years to suffer the consequences of their carelessness, and has mobilized, filing lawsuits, putting anti-gerrymandering initiatives on ballots, and contesting as many state and local political offices as is possible. In addition, voters tend to see gerrymanders as undemocratic, and there is broad opposition to them on both sides of the aisle, meaning that a lot of gerrymander-killing ballot initiatives have been adopted by wide margins in the past few years.
One such initiative was Missouri Amendment 1, voted into law in 2018 by 62% of the state's voters. Consider that the state's PVI is R+9, which implies that 58% of Missourians are Republicans and 42% are Democrats. Now consider that, in the State Senate, 24 of 34 officeholders (70.6%) are Republican. And in the State House, 114 of 160 (71.3%) are Republican. That should make it pretty easy to guess which party would be hurt most by eliminating the gerrymander.
In view of this, and with one election left before new maps are drawn, Republicans in the Missouri state legislature have put together a new proposal that would undo Amendment 1, and would put new rules in place. The "sales pitch" is that the new plan would prioritize keeping communities in the same district, but the key provisions are that map-drawing would be taken out of the hands of non-partisan demographers, and would be returned to committees appointed by the political parties and the state governor. Presumably you can guess which party would be favored by that change. In the event you need a hint, though, the current governor of Missouri is Mike Parson (R).
We will find out in November if Missouri voters are persuaded to overturn a decision they made just two years ago. We will find out even sooner than that if Republican-controlled legislatures in other states that have recently adopted anti-gerrymandering initiatives (like, say, Michigan) take inspiration from their colleagues in Missouri, and attempt a similar maneuver. (Z)
The second poll in a month that suggests Ohio is in play, the fourth poll in a month that suggests Texas is in play. Eventually these things are not anomalies anymore. (Z).
|California||65%||35%||May 08||May 09||Emerson Coll.|
|Ohio||49%||51%||May 08||May 10||Emerson Coll.|
|Texas||48%||52%||May 08||May 10||Emerson Coll.|
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- email@example.com For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- firstname.lastname@example.org For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- email@example.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- firstname.lastname@example.org For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
Email a link to a friend or share:
---The Votemaster and Zenger
May11 ...And Mike Pence Isn't
May11 The Worst Is Yet to Come
May11 Job Losses Have Been the Worst in the South
May11 Supreme Court to Hear a Case Tomorrow about Whether the President is Like a King
May11 California Will Mail Every Registered Voter a General-Election Ballot
May11 Two Democrats Can Cancel the Republican National Convention
May11 Republicans Might Win a Special Election in California Tomorrow
May11 Trump's Move to Florida May Not Be So Easy
May10 Sunday Mailbag
May09 Saturday Q&A
May08 In Like Flynn
May08 Trump Is Just Making It Up As He Goes
May08 Lincoln Project Getting Plenty of Oxygen
May08 Trump Campaign Prepares to Launch "Death Star"
May08 Trump Campaign Also Investing in Suits over Voting Laws
May08 A Somewhat Good Poll for Trump
May08 Burr's Brother-in-Law Also Dumped Stock
May08 Today's Presidential Polls
May07 Amash May Hurt Biden More than Trump
May07 Trump Is Planning to Call the Number of COVID-19 Deaths Fake News
May07 Trump Doesn't See Eye to Eye with His Campaign
May07 Trump Doesn't See Eye to Eye with His Attorney General
May07 Trump Doesn't See Eye to Eye with Senate Republicans
May07 Private Payrolls Dropped 20 Million People in April
May07 Temporary Layoffs Are Becoming Permanent
May07 Walker Sails Through Confirmation Hearing
May07 Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments about Trump's Tax Returns Next Week
May07 The Streisand Effect, Part II
May07 Today's Presidential Polls
May06 White House Coronavirus Task Force to Shut Down
May06 Republicans Go to Court to Fight COVID-19 Restrictions
May06 Lucy Flores Says She Believes Tara Reade
May06 More Health Issues for Ginsburg
May06 New York Primary Is On, After All
May06 Bernie Just Mild About Liz
May06 For Republicans, Things Are Getting Rocky in the Rockies...
May06 ...and Things Are Getting Ugly in Maine
May06 Today's Presidential Polls
May05 Death Toll Will Shoot up as States Reopen
May05 Honest Abe vs. Not-so-honest Don
May05 New Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Vote-by-Mail
May05 Democrats Working on Torrent of Voting-rights Lawsuits
May05 Biden Calls for Any Reade Paperwork to Be Released
May05 Does Biden Have a "Latino Problem"?
May05 Bolton Book Pushed Back Again
May05 Today's Presidential Polls
May04 Biden Crushes Sanders in Kansas Primary
May04 David Axelrod: We Vetted Biden in 2008 and Didn't Find Anything
May04 Why Did Trump Scream at Parscale?